Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Welcome Albatrosity2. I look forward to your continuing the outstanding ID takedowns that you posted so well at FTK's blog.

I believe that as Mr. Jefferson once said you are: "Moving On Up". That's George, not Tom BTW...

However, I do think you should change your name ASAP to: SmartDave, or possibly DaveSmart, to distinguish yourself from DumbDave, aka DaveScot.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Well, now that FtK has joined up here, I can come out of the closet! I'm Dave (really). I had an account here as Albatrossity, but somehow that account disappeared, so when I tried to post yesterday, I was told that the username was not on the list of registered users... Richard was kind enough to forward my tale of woe to stevestory, and he forwarded it to Wesley, but as of today I still could not log in with that username.

So I did what appears to be a common thing (judging from the list of members, at least); I created a second account as Albatrossity2.

I am a biology professor at KSU in Manhattan KS, my research interests are broad (ranging from lipid metabolism to stable isotope studies in grassland birds), and I also am charged with coordinating our large intro bio course every fall semester. Given my location in KS, the ID controversy has occupied a fair amount of my time and interest in the last few years, and I have participated in several local events sponsored by Sigma Xi and our local Center for the Understanding of Origins (a multidisciplinary group of scientists and scholars in Biology, Physics, Entomology, Geology, Philosophy and English) dedicated to increasing understanding of science and how it works.

Thanks for the kind words, and I thank you also for the insights and understandings that all of your posts have given to me!

Good to have you here. You're one of a few dozen science professors who are banned from UncommonDescent.

Several people here are professors or professional researchers, about half seem to have science degrees, and the rest are knowledgeable amateurs.

Nah, reptiles are just fucked up birds that aren't cool enough to have feathers yet.

Quote

Well, so are we.

Nah, we're just glorified bonobos.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I've listened to quite a few lectures surrounding the issues in this debate, but the lecture I sat through tonight was by far the most difficult to stomach. In fact, I had to leave my chair at one point because the guy next to me was about to get slapped.

This has ~NEVER~ happened to me before, and I've always been extremely calm at these lectures regardless of how much I disagree with the speaker. I also get quite irritated when I hear someone badgering the speaker etc. even if I agree with their point.

But tonight was different, and I'm trying to sit back and reasonably consider the lecture again to try to figure out what it was that led me to the point of no return.

I think the main reason is this particular speaker has been prefacing his book and lectures with the notion that he is "unbiased" and "fair". He was introduced that way this evening as well. So, you'd hope to actually get an "unbiased and "fair" account. I was still hoping for some semblance of fair reporting when I walked in there tonight, but I was ~seriously~ disappointed. His lecture was worse than the book.

To be honest, I'd rather listen to Dawkins speak again than sit through another Humes lecture, because at least with Dawkins we know what we're getting. He certainly doesn't claim to be "unbiased".

I'd also like to know where one draws the line between describing someone as misleading and being an outright liar. Seriously. I've never heard so many half truths, half of the story, or outright unfair *speculation* in my life.

I had made it through most of the lecture when at one point I simply couldn't take it anymore and turned around to talk to a guy I knew who was sitting behind me. My whispering was getting a bit loud, and the guy next to me (who I recognized from many other lectures) looked at me and gave me an irritated "shhh". I bit back "don't tell me to hush". I seriously cannot believe I said that!!! He told me to go have my conversation outside, and at that point I just got up and left, because staying simply wasn't going to be a good thing.

I did talk to Humes for a second afterward and asked him a question about something he mentioned in his lecture that I still cannot believe he had the gall to relay to the public. After his response, I really lost it and told him I hope the DI gets a hold of his lecture tonight because it was the most misleading portrayal of the issues that I've ever heard.

I'm still in shock. I am always cordial to people regardless of their position in this debate, but tonight I was out of control. I think the reason I got to the point I did is because the man is basically either a liar or clueless.

So, I'm going to take a few days to calm down before I try to put together a review of the lecture. I'm not even sure my notes are worth much because I was pretty much livid throughout his entire spiel. I do plan on calling KU to see how soon they will be posting that lecture, because if this dude is spewing this particular version of supposed facts in regard to ID/creation/evolution, then someone needs to set him straight. Although, thankfully, it doesn't appear that he lectures too often and there were only around 80 in attendance tonight. But, if the Darwinists get a load of the spin he's pushing, they'll undoubtedly put the guy on the payroll (if they havenĎt already). They do love a good spin doctor.

In closing, if there are any DI fellows out there reading this...get a copy of this lecture, and be sure to have a dozen or so barf bags lined up before you listen to it.

*Don't read that like I'm also a biologist. I do the Jokes KE turns down.

Don't listen to him Dave.....he's gay.

I'M NOT GAY AND DAVES NOT HERE -RTH

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Actually, I was out with my Field Ornithology class, sitting in a blind on Konza Prairie, and watching the display antics of Greater Prairie Chickens in a thunderstorm (this class could hire themselves out as rainmakers...).

Of course, while watching those male birds prance and boom and chuckle and squawk and flail at their pals, all for naught since no female birds showed up at the lek today, we all wondered how the intelligent designer came up with the Greater Prairie Chicken design. Somebody has a sense of humor, for sure!

Or maybe they are all homos...

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

Actually, I was out with my Field Ornithology class, sitting in a blind on Konza Prairie, and watching the display antics of Greater Prairie Chickens in a thunderstorm (this class could hire themselves out as rainmakers...).

Of course, while watching those male birds prance and boom and chuckle and squawk and flail at their pals, all for naught since no female birds showed up at the lek today, we all wondered how the intelligent designer came up with the Greater Prairie Chicken design. Somebody has a sense of humor, for sure!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

More evidence of ID (or just more bird stuff for Arden) - GrrlScientist has posted one of my photos (LeConte's Sparrow) as well as a link to a photo essay about Grasshopper Sparrows. Both of these species are truly Reasonable Kansans.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

More evidence of ID (or just more bird stuff for Arden) - GrrlScientist has posted one of my photos (LeConte's Sparrow) as well as a link to a photo essay about Grasshopper Sparrows. Both of these species are truly Reasonable Kansans.

I especially like the picture of the little guy in the top photo in this page. I feel like that all the time.

Incidentally, whatever happened to Mommy FTK? Did she look around the viper's nest of secular humanists and devilutionists here and get cold feet?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Maybe she just wanted to read and make the occasional comment. It's not likely this will become her primary forum, because she can't remove the arguments of informed people when necessary.

That's speculation; I don't know much about FtK, I'm basing this off the behavior of UD, where most of the people with science degrees have been banned.

And banned for the obvious reason. If your site is dedicated to advancing the theory that Honda Accords are powered by leprechauns, and internal combustion engines don't explain horsepower, you're going to need to ban most of the auto mechanics who stop by.

I'm sure the following was merely an oversight on ftk's part, but my comment on this thread never showed up. I don't know why.

Quote

Wow. A ginormous amount of flap-doodle. This for instance:

ftk: <i>We are discovering things all the time that evolution canít begin to explain...</i>

Yet the rest of the paragraph--and indeed, the comment--seem to contain exactly zero examples of these discoveries. Frustrating.

ftk: <i>hundreds of articles and books written by ID supporters</i>

Yes, I'm sure you can point me to some of the astounding DISCOVERIES in these papers, wherever they might be when you also point out the new DISCOVERIES in the the literature I have not yet read.

Something to ponder: saying that the flagellum is IC is not an example of new knowledge. Um, "new knowledge" of a positive nature would be an example of new knowledge. Something along the lines of "wow, the tennets of ID led me to postulate the existence of this anti-body and now I've found it."

ftk: <i>But, letís say for the sake of argument that ID generates no new scientific research whatsoever. Hypothesis donít particularly have to generate new scientific research. They merely have to be a true description of what happens in nature. For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesnít usually generate new scientific research, but it tells us about nature. There are many examples such as this.</i>

This paragraph is a mess. The first two sentences don't describe a scientific hypothesis. They do describe something like the sentence, "That table is brown." You are describing an observation, not an hypothesis and you apparently have an inkling of this in the next sentence about describing nature.

How exactly are we to know if an observation (your: hypothesis) is an accurate description of nature if it is untestable or uninvestigatable? This is what we mean when we call ID a science-killer. If all ID can do is generate information that needs no investigation, you know what? It is boring and by definition would create no new knowledge. We know the table is brown, no need to investigate. But if you are asking truly interesting questions, you'll find the need to test them. This is not what ID does.

And finally, your claim that discovering a new planet, or moon, or star, or whatever doesn't generate new research is completely inane. When we discover new moons, we send satellites to them. When that produces new discoveries of minerals, gasses, or whatever, that generates new missions and new hypothesis about: planet formation, early solar-system make-up, possible extra-terrestrial life, etc. The discovery of extra-solar planets has led to the testing and corraborating of many ideas in astronomy and cosmology: including star-planet development, pulsar study and more.

Do you really think that NASA scientists and all the world's astronomers just point telescopes at the sky, find a new piece of rock and then are done with it to find another piece of rock? Is that all you think their jobs entail?

ftk: <i>As far as testable hypotheses, I believe that Behe has certainly provided that in the flagellum, along with the prediction of design in other molecular machines, and he has laid our the reasoning behind his claims.</i>

Are you familiar with the refutations of Behe and with his own continually changing definition of what exactly IC is?

My favorite:

ftk: <i>But, itís pretty apparent, that as we see paper after paper coming out trying to refute ID claims, that ID does lead to further scientific research and the advancement of science. Iíve mentioned in the past that Harvard University has a research project regarding the origin of life due to the huge push to refute the ID movement.</i>

So, ID may not generate a noticable, or even visible, amount of research, but it's certainly valid and working because real scientists have decided to do work? Come on, which ID scientists are involved in the project? Which ID whizzes are funding this? Which papers are being written by the ID guys? That last paragraph is a hoot.

Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do. I am saddened beyond belief by this. No, really; I'm crying.

Also, she never provided me with the list of ID books that contain actual research--which she promised to do. I am saddened beyond belief by this. No, really; I'm crying.

There, there, Blipey. There, there. [pats shoulder]

Hey, I just remembered, whatever happened to that meeting you were supposed to have with Dave Scot? Did that get cancelled? I never heard.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I guess we all will have to cry in our beers. FtK has not posted one of my comments (and I have sent her three of them) since I called her out on her lack of understanding of science and the scientific method (in a rather looooong post). Here is the link

I can only speculate as to the reasons for that lack of comment throughput.

Perhaps she is still thinking about that post, and coming to the conclusion that she really doesn't know squat about science, but she does know what she likes (or dislikes, actually). Maybe she is going through a metamorphosis, and will emerge from the chrysalis as a changed and rational being, who finally sees ID as a pseudoscientific disguise of creationism.

Perhaps she is still so upset about hearing Humes' lecture that she is incapable of moderating blog comments for a few days.

Perhaps (and this is most likely) she is peeved at me for joining up here and showing my true colors as "one of them".

At any rate, I am truly saddened by this turn of events. One way to look at it was that her ID blog had its own "pet scientist", who assidously read her posts and commented as necessary. What other ID blog can claim that? Hopefully, she will eventually see the error of her ways and allow me to comment freely again, in the search for the truth that seems to be the Holy Grail of that blogging enterprise.

Or not.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

"For instance, when we discover a new planet, that doesnít usually generate new scientific research,"

Anyone who knows how science works can instantly recognize that such a statement is not merely wrong, it's next to impossible. I bet even a layman such as Davescot, whose only exposure to science is reading some old Scientific Americans, could tell you that statement is way off.

I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.

We're all pacifists here ('cept Lenny). BLipey will go in with a family pack of cheesypoofs. I l believe that Dave threatened BLipey with fisticuffs, but we all know that if you are that weight you should ease into strenuous exercise. I hope they meet and chat. We're all human.

I haven't followed this Blipey and Davescot thing, and therefore I don't have any opinion on it. What I'm about to say isn't directed at anybody in particular, it's just a general statement:

Threats communicated over the internet are bad news and can have legal consequences. Anything the moderators here believe constitutes a threat will be removed immediately.

Am I supposed to have absolutely no idea what you're alluding to here?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I'm not alluding to the Blipey / Davescot thing really because I don't know what that thing is. I seem to remember something about a fight, I don't know how they set it up, or how the discussions were transmitted, I'm not saying Blipey threatened Davetard or vice versa, I'm just saying, as far as communications and ass-whoopings are in the air somewhere, I'd like everybody to avoid anything that may constitute a threat being posted here. I've been busy lately, and I haven't seen anything here and thought 'that's a threat', but what goes on here can potentially have legal implications and so I thought I'd mention that the internet isn't without consequences. Really, I'm thinking of a friend in Charlotte. He had a bad breakup, and the girl's crazy brother started sending him threats via email, and my friend found out the threats were being sent from a computer at Microsoft, and long story short, the threatener no longer works at Microsoft. I'm not accusing anybody, I don't know what's going on, I just wanted to mention that whatever happens, now or in the future, I'd like everyone to be conscious not to use this board to convey any threats. Just an FYI, not about anything in particular.

Way back in the good old days of UDoJ: the Sting Operation, DaveTard told me to look him up when I was in Austin. Since I'll be passing through Austin on my show tour, I'm going to take him up on it.

I merely want to see how he behaves in person as none of know anything about that situation. I have a list of questions that I'll try to get him to answer. As I'm certainly no biologist, most of the questions are philosophical, political, or behavioral in nature.

Of course, in the same thread, DaveTard threatened to thrash me with chainsaws. So, it could be fun.